This report is a compilation of discussions generated during the two-day long Dialogue on Democracy: Majorities and Minorities organized by Lokniti a program on comparative democracy of the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, Delhi (CSDS) as part of the State of Democracy in South Asia (SDSA) project in Dhulikhel, Nepal on the 11th and 12th of August 2004. The SDSA project aims to produce, among others, a report on the state of democracy in South Asia. To do this, the project is utilizing four different methods, of which the dialogue is one of them. The other three methods are cross-sectional sample surveys, qualitative assessment and case studies. This dialogue was the second in a series in Nepal. The first was held in November 2003 and covered very broad discussions on five different aspects of democracy: the promise, design, working, outcomes and future of democracy. This second dialogue specifically focussed on the issues of majorities and minorities in Nepal.

The choice of the topic was fortuitous. All the countries in South Asia are trying to build their nation states. The imagination of what the nation should look like is an integral part of this process. South Asian societies are essentially diverse and plural. This diversity and plurality in South Asia poses further challenges in the process of national imagination. In this regard, some of the fundamental questions that come up are: what kinds of institutions are required for an inclusive democratic process? What kinds of relationships among diverse peoples are necessary? What can we learn from the past? And what kind of future do we imagine?

There are contradictory tendencies in the regions: on the one hand the diverse groups of people are increasingly asserting their place in the imagination and formation of the nation and in the democratic process; and on the other hand, there are forces which are bent on homogenizing this diversity. This has created conflicts. At the centre of the major conflicts in South Asia today are questions of: state, constitution and relationships among the diverse groups of people in the region. Nepal is no exception to that. The debate in Nepal has gained further momentum in the present context of violent conflict. In the last one-decade, the questions raised by dalits, janajatis (Scheduled Tribes), women and other sections of Nepali society have been directly related to the issues of the governing system of the state, the relationships between people and the state and relationships between different peoples. These questions have also been the driving force for the re-imagination of democracy that is taking place in Nepal today. It was in this context that the dialogue on majorities and minorities gets further salience.

Objectives of the dialogue

•	To reflect on the position of minorities in the constitution of Nepal;
•	To analyse the interventions for inclusion;
•	To identify possible future roads for a more inclusive democracy.

The methodology
Dialogues as a method brings together a diversity of interests and viewpoints. Therefore, it is important to have a cross-section of people in the dialogue process. It differs from a conference or a workshop in which a few present the case and discussions are generated around the presentations. Instead in a dialogue, the topic is discussed by the participants based on their viewpoints, experiences and imaginations. At the same time this is not a confrontational process. The free flow of conversations is an essential component of the dialogue process.

Two types of dialogues are envisaged in the SDSA project. The first set of dialogues is on the broad theme of democracy. The first dialogue that was held in November 2003 was of that kind. This would allow general discussions among diverse groups of people. The second set of dialogues is on specific themes. This is intended to allow in-depth discussions on specific themes that confront the democratic process. This dialogue on Majorities and Minorities was of this kind. As Pratyoush Onta said, “Encouraging dialogue across sectors - between researchers and activists, for example - is an important way of democratising dialogue itself”.

The participants
Participants were drawn from a cross-section of Nepali society. Representatives of social movements, NGOs, academia, political parties and students were present in the dialogue. Participants also came from outside the valley. In this sense, this dialogue also encouraged conversations across, not only among people with diverse backgrounds, but also among diversity of ideas.

Although discussions on minorities and majorities started in the early twentieth century, these discussions flourished only after the political changes of the 1990s. The open democratic space after the 1990s provided a conducive environment for this. These concepts have undergone conceptual transformations in the subsequent periods because of two major reasons. Firstly, new actors have begun to assert their positions in society and are demanding justice, an end to discrimination and exclusion. Secondly, those demands have found place in scholarly and policy discourses.

In the early years of the 1990s, the dominant discourse on majorities and minorities focussed on electoral majorities and minorities. A new conceptualisation was beginning to emerge from among janajatis, dalits, women and other marginalized groups, that focussed on historical discrimination and exclusion, but the euphoria of multi-party democracy almost drowned those new voices in the initial years and there was a general belief among the major political actors that development and democracy will take care of historical roots of exclusion, however this was not to be the case. Additionally, even within the identity discourse, the initial focus was on numbers. Who got how many votes? What was the size of a group (ethnic, religious, caste, etc..) in terms of the general population? How much are they represented in the state and other institutions? These were the main questions debated initially.

This discourse has undergone significant transformations subsequently. The minorities and majorities now are discussed in terms of domination, exclusion and subordination. A variety of conceptualisations - not mutually exclusive though - have emerged. These new conceptualisations focus on the relational aspects of different groups, rather than on pure numbers and these new conceptualisations began to emerge as experiences began to be shared and discussed. To be dalits in Nepal is not only about being part of a category, but also about facing discrimination, exclusion and indignity at every level. The untouchability, and exclusion based on that, was lived in everyday life in society. Dalit rights activists, who had come from this dialogue, had innumerable stories of personal experiences to share. Thus, the issues of representation, participation, and social inclusion have come to the forefront of new conceptualisations. Which group dominates the state? What are the relationships between different groups in society? Who decides for whom? What kind of relationships exists in everyday practices in society? These questions are becoming central to these debates today.

The exclusion did not happen after 1990. In fact, it was carried over from the state’s practices in the past. During the 30 years of Panchayat rule, the dominant language, customs, religion and cultural practices were imposed on all the people. In Parliament, these practices still remain in the form of dress codes and the mandatory use of the Nepali language.

Two municipalities—Janakpur and Kathmandu—tried to introduce Maithili and Newari as working languages in the municipality offices, but the court overruled that. The state was not serious about protecting linguistic rights, as it did not challenge the Supreme Court’s ruling. A similar thing happened with the bill on citizenship, which would have facilitated the citizenship rights of madhesis but this was also blocked by the Supreme Court. Once again, dalit, madhesi and janajati activists asked, “Who controls the state in Nepal today?”

In the mid-eighties, a report on migration was sponsored by the state and it suggested the regulation of the flow of migrants from North India but this tried to reinforce the state’s attitude towards madhesis. This was opposed by some madhesi activists, and they were declared as traitors by the regime, Vijaya Karna, a madhesi scholar-activist said that the tendency of the state has always been either to assimilate the minorities or to exclude them. In 1954, the education commission made teaching Nepali mandatory in schools. The state also has a policy of special scrutiny towards terai people. They have police posts in each village, but that is not the case in the hills.
In the numerical sense, there is no social group that is in absolute majority. Therefore, the relational aspects of minority formation become important. The janajatis’ present claim is not based on pure numbers alone, but in terms of exclusion/inclusion in the processes and structures of governance, and social institutions. It is also based on past experiences. The same is true for dalits. Additionally, the issue of cultural autonomy and gendered violence have become part of new conceptualizations. Even if women are in absolute majority, they are considered a minority because they are excluded from state and social institutions. Mukta Lama, an anthropologist, referred to the UN (United Nations) definition, which also focused on the relations in domination.

There are differences within minorities. The terai people, while being excluded by the state in a number of ways, are themselves divided among those who dominate and those who are dominated. A similar situation exists among janajatis and dalits. Women are not homogenous groups. Rekha Jha of Janakpur illustrated with an example how women’s groups in the terai are dominated by the upper caste women in society.

CK Lal’s suggestion was that minorities could be defined in terms of economic, social, global and military power. Parshuram Tamang, a noted janajati activist, however raised the concern that using minority as new concept may in fact be inclusive enough. He instead suggested that we need to be direct. He said, “Therefore, let’s talk about women, dalits, janajatis, and not lump them into a category”. There is another legal issue involved here. Indigenous people have their rights enshrined in international instruments, which cannot be used if they are lumped into a minority label. “Minorities are special right-holders”, Mukta Lama said. The term ‘minority’ is also not a fixed concept. “Every majority is a minority in another sense and vice versa”, noted CK Lal.




No constitution in South Asia, according to Mukta Lama, has clarified constitutionally who the minorities are and what specific rights are protected. CK Lal also stressed the fact that the present constitution in Nepal does not accept the notion of a minority. In fact, according to him, “This constitution provides equality for people to beg in the streets, steal bread and sleep under culverts.”

When the present constitution was drafted, a lot of political leaders including the ones who drafted the constitution, claimed that this was the best constitution in the world but now the situation has changed. There are many shortcomings in the present constitution.

Sumitra Manandhar-Gurung’s presentation focussed on the constitution of Nepal and its provisions regarding minority rights. She looked at five major aspects of the constitutional provisions that were either inadequate or discriminatory in terms of minority-rights:

Positive but inadequate provisions

•	Popular sovereignty
•	Equality of citizenship,
•	Recognition of the multi-cultural, multi-ethnic and multi-lingual nature of society,
•	The right to practice one’s own culture

Silent means of discrimination

•	Denial of: federalism, autonomy, customary rights, and multi-religious nature of society.

Direct discriminations—

•	Nepali-language as the only official language,
•	Declaration of Nepal as a Hindu state,
•	The Cow as the national symbol of Nepal,
•	Prohibition of religions and ethnic-based political organizations,

Indirect discriminations—

•	Lack of provisions for education beyond the sixth grade in one’s mother-tongue,
•	Only five percent seats for women in parliamentary elections,
•	Reserves even that for dominant groups;

Discriminations against the international instruments
Nepal has so far signed seventeen different international instruments. According to the constitution of Nepal, those instruments have to be treated at par with constitutional provisions and any constitutional provisions that contradict these international provisions they (constitutional provisions) get superseded. But in practice the existing laws are upheld and most of them contradict the international provisions.

“The parliamentary constituencies have been designed based on an objective of deliberately excluding the madhesi people”, Vijaya Karna argued. A new constitution, from the perspectives of minorities, is a must: This was a general conclusion from the discussion. The making of the new constitution would have to be through ‘enthusiastic’ participation of the people. Pratyoush Onta however argued that even the present constitution can be changed and we have to remind ourselves that even the constitutional guaranteed rights have not been exercised. “So is it only the lack of provisions which is keeping us from realizing the rights of the minorities?” he asked.

The citizenship rights of madhesis and children of Badi women were also discussed. Madhesis have been discriminated against in citizenship as a part of hill-nationalism actively promoted by the state. Women are excluded when it comes to, among many other things, getting citizenship for their children. Some Badi women, who practice the sex trade and bear children, when the child’s father disappears, have difficulty in getting a citizenship certificate for their children in their mother’s name.

“Making a constitution is also not enough”, Surendra Thapa of Nepal Magar Sangh said. “We have to address the deeply embedded social practices. For example, we still see Mr Thapa is a soldier and Mr Regmi is a doctor taught in our school textbooks. The stereotypes deeply embedded cannot be changed through constitutional fiats alone”.

One of the interventions made in order to rectify the historical discrimination against minorities including dalits, janajatis, women and other groups is affirmative action. A brief presentation was made by anthropologist Dilli Ram Khanal on this topic. This presentation was based on a paper jointly prepared by Dilli Ram Dahal and Krishna Bhattachan. The paper focussed, among other aspects, on the history of the reservation policy in Nepal, the implementation, and the need for reservation policies.

Reservation in the constitution did not happen until 1990. But the 1990 constitution suffers from tokenism as the only reservation it provided for was for a five percent quota to be filled by women candidates for parliamentary elections. This quota was to be filed by political parties. Other than that there has not been any constitutional attempt to incorporate other historically discriminated sections of society into the fold of affirmative action. At the policy level, the local governance act (1999) reserved 20 percent seats for women in ward committees in any VDC. In October/November 2003, a number of reservation policies were announced for 20 percent, 10 percent and 5 percent reservation for women, dalits and indigenous groups respectively in government posts. However, this was not upheld, as the government did not last long. Therefore, the debate on affirmative action including that on reservation has remained at the level of public policy debates alone. Dilli Ram Dahal and Krishna Bhattachan’s joint paper highlighted a number of reasons for providing reservations for dalits, madhesis, indigenous nationalities and women. Two main reasons among them were: the history of marginalization, the exclusion from the state structures and decision-making processes and social exclusion. Besides the policy level formal announcements, some other initiatives have been taken up by the state to uplift the situation of marginalized groups. Formation of different commissions and committees with special focus, and special programs at different levels are some of them. At the non-governmental level also, although there has not been much formal policy level announcements, there are now increasing emphasis on affirmative action in recruitment and program implementation. However, they seemed to have been limited to rhetoric, and have not changed beyond tokenism.

Many participants argued that intra-group differences pose a challenge in policy designing. For example, while on average, there is a disparity between non-dalits and dalits, the disparities exist also between dalits themselves, argued many participants in the dialogue. They proposed graded reservation in the process. A similar situation also existed among women, janajatis and madhesis.

The presentation by Dilli Ram Dahal suggested that social-economic indicators such as literacy rate, housing unit, landholding and other economic assets could be taken into consideration while making policies on reservation. Deprivation at the economic and social levels goes together, as is evidenced by the fact that dalits are also the poorest. Hari Roka, on a different note, argued that reservation has to be done on productive assets including land. “Additionally, how do we face the challenge of reduced state involvement in the social sector and reservation?” he asked. In this context, reservation and affirmative actions in the non-governmental and private sector becomes important. Beyond a rhetoric, however, there has not been much work on this. Pratyoush Onta illustrated with the example of the Nepal Press Institute, which has not seriously worked on the issue of gross under-representation of dalits, other nationalities and women in the media.

Three major justifications have been made in India in favour of affirmative actions:

1.	Backward looking ones - as a redressal for the historical suffering, as a kind of reparation for past discrimination and indignity;
2.	Equal opportunity as an integral component of the acceptance of equal citizenship;
3.	Making sure that such things are not repeated in future

Peter de Souza said that perhaps the exclusive focus on state-centric reservation needed to change and should incorporate the private sector and non-governmental sector also. At the same time, it had to be kept in mind that reservation is only one mechanism to address the fundamental societal problems that we face. The purpose of reservation is to see the image of the nation in the state. Therefore, the question of representation is still important. “The ruling class, at the same time, has seen reservation as a way of pacifying the assertive groups - a kind of tranquilliser”, argued Kapil Shrestha. There is a tension between the need for group rights and individual rights. “How do we discuss adivasis’ rights to group knowledge in the context of intellectual property rights? It is the protection of community rights, which can address this challenge but, how do we address the oppression of women in communities, then?” Sarita Giri challenged. Both, therefore, need to be balanced.

One argument made against reservation is that in encourages inefficiency as it does not pay attention to merit. “But if we look at the present situation, we see that incapable and inefficient people are everywhere. So that argument does not hold much ground”, Vijay Karna said.




During the two days of the dialogue, participants presented a number of ideas for inclusive futures. While a lot of discussions had taken place in terms of what should be the desired situation in the future and what was wrong, with the present way of achieving that – future, had not got much attention. Therefore, in the last session of the dialogue, a focussed presentation from activists involved in different movements and campaigns was made. A different and more inclusive future was in the making, this was evidenced by not only the desire for it but the struggles taking place to bring this about in different places of the country.

Neera Jairu and Ganesh B. K. presented a variety of campaigns by dalits in western Nepal to deal with untouchability, exclusion and oppression in social and political practices. These struggles are dealing with both national issues as well as everyday issues such as inter-caste marriages, untouchability at water spouts, segregation in social functions and schools, among others. Moreover, the struggles of haliyas (bonded labourers in the hills) in western Nepal were also an important process for a better future. A Parliament of dalits is being planned by the Regional Dalit Network as a way of publicizing and asserting dalit rights. “Eating together with dalits can be transformative action”, Rekha Jha said. She also shared about women’s campaigns against violence against women carried out in the name of practicing witchcraft.

Surendra Thapa Magar raised the issue of domination with examples of the name changing of places that has occurred throughout Nepal. The janajati names of many places have been changed into dominant Hindu names in a number of places. “An inclusive future, therefore, cannot be imagined without reasserting the right to name the places we live in”, he argued.

Siyaram Chaudhari shared the example of the Collective Campaign for Peace (COCAP) to illustrate that if there was a strong will in the leadership, the non-governmental sector can implement the policy of affirmative action and positive discrimination. He also highlighted the fact that some of the problems that janajatis face today could be linked to cultural practices such as extravaganza in festivals. “Therefore, change from within is also an important way of achieving a better future”, he argued.

“The political parties have to be inclusive enough and perhaps civil society can show the way”, Sarita Giri said. People on the margins were being increasingly empowered. “We need to create space for their involvement”, Suklal Nepali, who has been campaigning for the citizenship rights of Badi children, said. He also said that moral support from non-dalits in the struggle of dalits is necessary. “Their capacity to act and transform has to be enhanced”, Sumitra Manandhar Gurung said. Affirmative action can contribute towards that. While it is necessary for policy and constitutional change to happen, without pressure on the political actors from dalits, janajatis and women themselves, things may not move much beyond rhetoric.

There are different conceptualisations of majorities and minorities in Nepal today. These differences may lead to different approaches to address some of the fundamental issues raised by different marginalized groups in society. A number of intervention strategies have been proposed to address the issue of exclusion, discrimination and oppression. The debates on them have got further salience in the present context of violent conflict. The present dialogue aimed to bring together diverse streams of thought. The aim was not to have a common understanding, but to share ideas. This was done in the dialogue. There were some common understandings about the need for change—from the everyday level of society to formal structures of the state, non-governmental and private sector.

The struggles at various levels have provided a further impetus for change. New actors, who were hitherto relegated to a marginal space in society’s ‘knowledge-making’ realm, have raised their voices. The right to imagine have been broadened to include people who do not possess formal degrees and positions in knowledge institutions. This gathering therefore was an important event as it brought into dialogue people who have been taking up formal positions in the knowledge-realm (the teachers, professors and researchers) and people about whom: research was being done or things were being spoken about in the past.